ASA: Extra Players, a batting Flex, and a skipped DP hitter

[teebob21]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

I guess I ignored this, but the OP seems to only have 10 players. If so, the 3 slot and 7 slot could just be EP.

EP's are allowed in JO pool play, without or with a DP/FLEX. .

10 players plus subs. Irrelevant to the situation, but they had a few subs not in the lineup. EP's were allowed at this tournament.

Obviously, I know how we ruled; I'm curious to see what rules others would have used to extricate their partner from this.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by teebob21

10 players plus subs. Irrelevant to the situation, but they had a few subs not in the lineup. EP's were allowed at this tournament.

Obviously, I know how we ruled; I'm curious to see what rules others would have used to extricate their partner from this.

So they could bat as many as they wanted and they could also use the DP/Flex. (I'm hesistant to call that an EP since that's a different rule). In that case, I think you've got three choices. Either, go with what the coach wanted (swapping his DP and flex since he clearly misunderstood the terms) or go with what he gave you, making him use the DP as flex and vice versa, or worst of all make him use the 10 spot as the flex. The first seems better in a relaxed context and the second seems better in games that count.

[AtlUmpSteve]

My thoughts:

Don't see where you said how many players were listed in the lineup, but to have an EH/EP/AP plus DP and FLEX, there needs to be 11 starters listed. (USSSA/USAES allows up to 2 AP's plus DP/FLEX, so that lineup can have 12 starters listed.) Where there?

If 11 are listed, no matter what they list as positions, #11 is the FLEX, and does not bat. And so far has not, so there is not an illegal sub, there are simply defensive changes from the written lineup. And, whomever is listed as DP is the person tied to that FLEX (the one in position #11, not the one with FLEX written next to it.

If only 10 in that lineup, and the 10th player is not the FLEX, then I don't care what they intended, they have an EH/EP/AP and no DP or FLEX. That is the lineup that was accepted, regardless what they thought they were doing. All is good, no illegal subs, no one batting out of order.

Not championship play, move on. If championship play, get a new PU. Regardless, teach the PU what is the minimum necessary to accept a legal lineup to start a game.

[teebob21]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

My thoughts:

[....snip....]

If only 10 in that lineup, and the 10th player is not the FLEX, then I don't care what they intended, they have an EH/EP/AP and no DP or FLEX. That is the lineup that was accepted, regardless what they thought they were doing. All is good, no illegal subs, no one batting out of order.

Not championship play, move on. If championship play, get a new PU. Regardless, teach the PU what is the minimum necessary to accept a legal lineup to start a game.

The highlighted portion above is what we did. My PU partner brain-farted at the pregame meeting and he owned it. I doubt he'll make that mistake again. I suggested that the names in the lineup were valid, but the positions were incorrect: a correctable mistake without penalty. 10 batters were listed to start the game. The missed batter was done and gone, nothing anyone can do about it. The (wrong) DP/Flex designations were eliminated, and we finished the game with 10 batting: 9 + 1 EP.

The coach needed a kindergarten lesson on DP/Flex, and thankfully got one from the UIC after the "problem". The funny part was that their scorekeeper knew the lineup rules, and was on "our side" during the fix.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

(the one in position #11, not the one with FLEX written next to it.

This seems reasonable enough but why does the list the flex last rule trump the rule about writing positions next to names. That is why go this way instead of saying that the identified flex was the flex but written in the wrong line?

[CecilOne]

OK, after a few ideas, there is no book solution; just "umpire rules on anything not covered in the book". Before relearning, that is.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by youngump

This seems reasonable enough but why does the list the flex last rule trump the rule about writing positions next to names. That is why go this way instead of saying that the identified flex was the flex but written in the wrong line?

Among other reasons, mostly because you cannot justify any umpire accepting the lineup as written. Secondarily, the vast majority of umpires would have zero chance of fixing this correctly. Thirdly, I suspect you would get three different rulings from any four UIC's, including any three members of the ASA NUS for most permutations of this lineup. Finally, because the coaches in that game would have zero chance of accepting whatever they were told the penalty is (one turned in this mess, the other doesn't know to appeal at the proper time, and the PU accepted it, so why do we believe you now??!!!).

The ONLY saving grace in this situation is that the appeal came with a batter in the box after pitches were thrown; that legalized everything to that point, and any decision made about BOO would only result in the "proper" batter assuming that count. But, still a lose/lose/lose proposition; perception is reality, even more in umpiring than most any other situation.

Some day, those making rules will recognize that positions are generally unnecessary and pointless, other than to identify the DP that (by rule) is married to the last person listed, and to identify which players are eligible for courtesy runners. Well, except NCAA, where justifying SID salaries to maintain extended stats is a priority.